/m/hof

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Gee, it's too bad that folks haven't been pointing out this looming mess for years then possibly high profile BBWAA members would have been calling for ballot expansion 1 or 2 years ago rather than a couple of months before the votes are due.

(In fairness, Schonfeld might have written essentially the same article a year ago but there needed to be a lot more of them.)

Also ... It has elected one starting pitcher in the past 13 years. Yes, but it's about to elect probably 6-7 over the next 5-10 years so there's no reason to be concerned about this. What they are going to do with the next wave of pitchers (Halladay, etc.) who will mostly have excellent rate stats but (relative to earlier eras) short careers is the real challenge.

I think the Hall is already broken. The steroids-tainted players aren't getting in any time soon, probably not ever, and if the incongruity caused by that isn't enough the logjam is going to create a domino effect.

I still like having traditional Hall of Fame arguments, but it's now irrelevant to me who is in and who isn't. And when the traditional Hall of Fame type discussions basically include from everyone the phrase "steroids aside," you know the institution has lost its prior status and thus its ability to honor players.

This is nutty though - 3 guys over 100 bWAR, 11 with 70+, 15 with 60+. For comparison....
2004: 3 with 70+, 8 with 60+ - highest guy at 95 was Blyleven who came in 9th
1994: 4 with 70+, 8 with 60+ - highest guy at 96.6 was 3rd Niekro
1984: 3 with 60+, 2 getting in and a 3rd guy getting in as well (Don Drysdale, Harmon Killebrew and Luis Aparicio getting in)
1974: 1 with 100+ (Mantle), 3 with 70+, 7 with 60+. Mantle got in of course along with Ford who was sub 60.
1964: 4 with 70+, 7 with 60+, none got in, top was Luke Appling
1954: 4 with 70+, 8 with 60+, 3 got in but all were sub 60 (remember, pre-baseball encyclopedia so stats knowledge was very poor) #1 was Joe DiMaggio but he was retired just 3 years.
1944: no election
1936: first election, 13 with 100+ WAR, 17 with 70+ WAR, 23 with 60+. All 5 who got in had over 100 WAR.

First 3 elections put in just 100+ WAR guys, 4th had one more plus 2 guys in the 50's (George Sisler and Willie Keeler). Every election that selected someone had at least one 100+ WAR guy until 1948 when they put in 2 guys sub 50. Remember, no solid source for career stats so it was mainly memories of 'greatness'.

This article gets it right. It's been clear to me for a while that it'll be hard for virtually anyone to get into the Hall of Fame in the foreseeable future.

Aside from Greg Maddux, we might already be at the point where the ten most qualified players of the post-strike era are all players that the Steriod crusaders refuse to vote for. If not now, soon the voters will be divided into two distinct groups whose ballots may not overlap at all. 30-40% vote based on the players' qualifications, 30-40% vote based on moral concerns, and then you have the other voters who use no brain cells at all in their deliberations.

Aside from Greg Maddux, we might already be at the point where the ten most qualified players of the post-strike era are all players that the Steriod crusaders refuse to vote for. If not now, soon the voters will be divided into two distinct groups whose ballots may not overlap at all.

I seriously doubt it. Maddux, Glavine, Biggio, Thomas, Randy Johnson, Pedro and Griffey Jr. will all go in within the next few years. Others like Schilling and Bagwell will also make progress toward election.

Clemens and Bonds will be waiting outside, topping out near 50 percent for the forseeable future and gumming the works to a degree. But we won't see an empty podium again for quite a long time.

#10, even if your predictions come true the core problem will not have been solved, namely that several great players have been and will be left out, and since that has happened the institution has lost its ability to honor players.

Let's say the voters decided as a group to leave black players out going forward. Or players whose last names start with G. Would anyone take seriously the Hall as an institution anymore, on the logic that, hey, while Griffey may be out, Cal Ripken is still in.

#10, even if your predictions come true the core problem will not have been solved, namely that several great players have been and will be left out, and since that has happened the institution has lost its ability to honor players.

I wasn't really addressing that, just disputing the idea that the logjam will get so severe that only the Madduxiest of players will get elected.

The problem the Hall faces with the steroid issue is that for as many anti-anti-steroid zealots such as yourself out there, there is some comparable number of anti-steroid zealots for whom the Hall will lose all credibility if they elect the disgraceful, cheating bastards. You may think these people are irrational, and you may very well be right. But the Hall charges the same admission for the irrational people as it does for everyone else.

As much as it may offend you, the Hall's best bet is to do what it's doing. Stay out of it for now, and hope that attitudes move more toward yours in the years to come.

Now, it can address some of the structural ballot issues that DanG has covered, with the increase on the ballot size being the most obvious one. It won't solve your problem with the institution, but it will help one area of concern.

The problem the Hall faces with the steroid issue is that for as many anti-anti-steroid zealots such as yourself out there, there is some comparable number of anti-steroid zealots for whom the Hall will lose all credibility if they elect the disgraceful, cheating bastards. You may think these people are irrational, and you may very well be right. But the Hall charges the same admission for the irrational people as it does for everyone else.

You have to wonder how many people give enough of a damn about who's included or not included in the plaque room that they'd base their decision to visit the HoF on something that trivial, especially since all the controversies put together affect but a tiny percentage of the HoF's current and prospective population. I've been there four times and I've always gone mostly for the historical displays. You can buy a set of postcards if you just want to see the plaques.

As much as it may offend you, the Hall's best bet is to do what it's doing. Stay out of it for now, and hope that attitudes move more toward yours in the years to come.

And that's almost certainly what they'll do. If they tried changing the rules or jawboning the BBWAA in a transparent attempt to induct particular candidates, that'd blow up in their faces so fast they wouldn't know what hit them, and the pushback wouldn't be coming just from committed anti-steroids voters.

You have to wonder how many people give enough of a damn about who's included or not included in the plaque room that they'd base their decision to visit the HoF on something that trivial...
If they tried changing the rules or jawboning the BBWAA in a transparent attempt to induct particular candidates, that'd blow up in their faces so fast they wouldn't know what hit them, and the pushback wouldn't be coming just from committed anti-steroids voters.

If visitors started boycotting the Hall of Fame, how could anybody tell?

I have never been to the Hall, but I love the idea of it and am glad it is around.

I like the discussions and think it helps to celebrate the history of the game. Inducting players (and others) is an important part of that celebration of history. The occasional (or more often) injustice is not the end of the world, and honestly a bit of controversy likely helps. Of course we if we get stuck in a ditch in inductions that is a problem, but "sufficient unto the day" and all that.

And yes I think Barry and Roger should be inducted, don't care about PEDs, and find the steroid moralizing annoying. But if I let stuff like that ruin my enjoyment of things I would go through life as miserable as many of these columnists (and sme posters) sound.

So we have this weird Hall of Fame where great and deserving players aren’t in but Jacob Ruppert is in, and Hank O’Day and Joe Gordon and Bill Mazeroski, not to mention the 17 players and executives from the Negro Leagues elected in an overreaching nod to political correctness in 2006.

"So we have this weird Hall of Fame where great and deserving players aren't in but Jacob Ruppert is in, and Hank O'Day and Joe Gordon and Bill Mazeroski, not to mention the 17 players and executives from the Negro Leagues elected in an overreaching nod to political correctness in 2006."

Putting aside the "Joe Gordon is not a worthy HOFer" debate which was smacked down in another thread, I fail to see Schoenfield's point here. O'Day, Maz, and the Negro Leaguers were not voted in by the BBWAA. They didn't take spots on the ballot away from anyone, no one had to drop a vote for Jack Morris or Dale Murphy to vote for Hank O'Day, and it isn't like there is a finite capacity for inductees in the Hall- you can squeeze in as many as you want.

The problem with a backlogged HOF ballot isn't O'Day or Maz or the Veterans Committees or the Negro Leaguers or anyone else other than the BBWAA.

PS- using Schoenfield's WAR example from the article, Jeff Kent- who according to Schoenfield has a solid HOF case- has a career bWAR of 55.2 over 17 seasons. Joe Gordon- who Schoenfield cites in his "great and deserving player" comment as not being worthy- has a career bWAR of 57.1 in 11 seasons, and missed two prime years to WW II. Just sayin'...

So we have this weird Hall of Fame where great and deserving players aren’t in but Jacob Ruppert is in, and Hank O’Day and Joe Gordon and Bill Mazeroski, not to mention the 17 players and executives from the Negro Leagues elected in an overreaching nod to political correctness in 2006.

That breathtakingly ignorant and borderline racist comment alone eliminates this writer from any serious consideration.

Guys, you don't have to be a racist to think that the 2006 Negro League election was a disaster.

• Although some of the selections like Biz Mackey were overdue, others such as Effa Manley were ridiculous.

• When you induct 17 people, you essentially induct zero people. No attention was drawn to the accomplishments of any of these individuals, therefore rendering Hall of Fame induction pointless. I'd bet Bitter Mouse's house that a breathtakingly small percentage of fans are even aware of the fact that a given 2006 electee is now in the Hall of Fame -- far less even than e.g. Ray Dandridge, who is not exactly one of the marquee players in Negro League history, but at least he got his own damn induction.

• If your philosophy is to get in everyone who might conceivably qualify before the door closes for good, you really should include Buck O'Neil.

It is one of the low points in Hall of Fame history (I would say mostly due to point #2, honestly.)

I'm really surprised that anyone followed James on the "Joe Gordon is an example of a bad HOF pick" thing.

I also am not sure Mussina and Kent won't get 5%. I assume Kent at least would not if we voted, but that's because we basically all would max out our ballots with 10 names. If you're not voting for PED players, I can imagine voting for a couple obvious guys and then throwing in Mussina or Kent. We'll see; that'll be interesting. I do obviously agree that the 10-name limit is dumb, the 5% thing at least needs to be re-thought, etc. etc. etc.

Yep. I must have slid my finger somewhere between the E and the A key, and it picked one. My virtual keyboard doesn't autocorrect based on grammatical context, though if that's not a thing that already exists, someone could make a lot of money developing a contextual autocorrect app.

Guys, you don't have to be a racist to think that the 2006 Negro League election was a disaster.

No, but Schoenfield doesn't help his case by throwing around loaded buzzwords like "political correctness," which obscures the fact that one of the reasons for that one year NeL logjam was that the HoF had waited until 2000 to even begin thinking about looking into the Negro Leagues' history with any real depth. If they'd started doing that study 25 years earlier, that 2006 mass induction wouldn't have been necessary.

I don't like resorting to Wiki, but in this case the entry for the Committee on African American Baseball gives some needed background to that election:

In July 2000, the Hall was given a $250,000 grant from Major League Baseball to begin a comprehensive study on African Americans in baseball from 1860–1960, with the hope of enhancing the Hall's collections in these areas. In February 2001, the Hall selected three historians – Dr. Larry Hogan, Dick Clark and Larry Lester – to conduct the study, which involved over 50 other researchers and authors. The resulting study was a narrative, bibliography, and statistical database, including 3,000 day-by-day records, league leaders and all-time leaders, collected from box scores in 128 newspapers of sanctioned Negro league games played from 1920-1954. The box scores reflect almost 100% of games of the 1920s, over 90% of the games played in the 1930s, and 50-70% of games in the 1940s and 1950s. In February 2006, National Geographic published a book featuring material from the study, in conjunction with the Hall, called Shades of Glory; it covers not only the development of the game, but also its impact within the African American community. Pride and Passion, an exhibit focusing on the history of African American baseball, debuted at the Hall's museum in April 2006.

I'm not really sure what the HoF has to apologize for. Better late than never.

#26 I hadn't though about the point you make wrt to 17 inductees. I'm not sure I totally agree. But the massive inductions of the mid-40s sort of backs you up. Yeah there are plenty of people here who'd have no trouble identifying those picks, but we spend an usual amount of time looking at the lesser members of the HOF (to get a sense of context for the HOF discussions of other borederline players). For the vast majority of fans they're, "WTF! This guy's in the Hall?"

That breathtakingly ignorant and borderline racist comment alone eliminates this writer from any serious consideration.

This. Schoenfield's articles are usually pretty good, but this one comment basically destroys whatever goodwill and benefit of the doubt he's spent years building up. If you have a problem with a specific Negro Leagues inductee, state your problem and we'll discuss it. But to basically say "enough black people in the Hall, already," is beyond the pale. Schoenfield deserves every bit of criticism he's getting in this thread.

As someone who's spent half a lifetime studying and writing about the Negro Leagues, I feel the committee in 2006 did a spectacular job in selecting the right Negro League figures for the Hall, with the lone exception of Effa Manley, which of course was a ludicrous selection. But they got the rest of them pretty much right. They certainly did a better job than any other HOF voting body ever has. You know you're doing pretty well when the only criticism people can grasp at is that you snubbed a guy who, as a player, was the Negro Leagues equivalent of Mark Grace with a better personality.

I'm not knowledgable enough about the Negro Leagues to say but the mass induction seemed ridiculous but it seems even more ridiculous to lay it at the feet of "political correctness." If anything, it was a move away from "political correctness." It was a "OK, time to wrap up the Negro League inductions, you get one last shot to put everybody in then no more special consideration for the Negro League" thing.

At the time I recall some of our local NeL experts were pretty unimpressed with some of the inductees.

Now that they've established this sort of precedent, I'd like to see them do the same thing with the older VCs ... starting in year X, players who retired more than 50 years ago will no longer be eligible for the HoF so we're giving you one last shot to put folks in.

The HoM has the same "problem", there are guys who've been on the ballot for over 100 "years" ... even if they managed to get elected on their 108th ballot does that say anything more than "we finally ran out of deserving candidates"?